Trouble logging in?We were forced to invalidate all account passwords. You will have to reset your password to login. If you have trouble resetting your password, please send us a message with as much helpful information as possible, such as your username and any email addresses you may have used to register. Whatever you do, please do not create a new account. That is not the right solution, and it is against our forum rules to own multiple accounts.

I love this part of the argument -- because it is said so many freaking times. It's as if you are all trained to say this message.

That's because it's the truth.
Nothing else needs to be said.

Quote:

It fails to address one sheer fact and reality: it is impossible to stop these mentally disturbed people from committing these shootings, because by the time anyone is aware, the shooting had already occurred. In most cases, the shooter commits suicide.

Unless you use the Israeli model.
Otherwise, no you can't stop them from attempting the crime.
You have to have someone there at the moment the act begins to stop it.
That is the fact and it is incontrovertible.
All this talk about "easy access", "if only there were no guns" and other inane viewpoints are moot.

Quote:

I will issue a challenge: determine the NEXT person who will commit a mass shooting. And where.

Next person, impossible.
Where: a school, shopping mall, theater, library or any other "gun free zone."

Quote:

No one wants to punish the right to own a gun. Instead, gun ownership needs to be REGULATED. Owning a gun is a right. Many people get that. However, to PREVENT these kinds of incidents, various kinds of regulations need to be implemented to ensure SAFETY.

Nice doublespeak.
Yes, you do want to punish the law abiding because they're not the problem.
The problem are the law breakers, sane, insane or otherwise.
I've given you the only method yet to be tried in the US, that being the one that has worked for Israel since 1974.
That's a clear record of a country filled with violent individuals hell bent on committing massacres who cannot do so because the children of that country are protected by armed teachers who are trained to use their weapons.
So this nonsense about banning, more restrictions, yadda, yadda is no longer logical.
We've given these things a try.
We had an "assault weapon and high cap mag ban" from 1994-2004. Columbine happened during that time, so did the DC sniper, so did the North Hollywood bank shooting (with real machineguns). Thus as both Syn and Ithekro had so eloquently shown you, prohibition does not work in the US.
The so called "war on drugs" is proof of that.
Can you even imagine the level of violence and death a "war on guns" would ensue?

Quote:

Originally Posted by hyl

You want to claim that if the gun control will get more restricted then there will be more of these schootings? Ok, based on what?

Claim?
It's already happened, there is no claim necessary.
Before the 1934 NFA there were hardly any mass school shootings.
After it was passed we've seen an increasing number of them at greater frequency and with deadlier effect.
After 1934, there are numerous Federal gun-control laws restricting access, type, and purchasing ability.
During the same period that gun laws have increased, so have the incidents of mass shooters.
Why isn't understood, but what is understood is that increased gun laws do nothing to stop these incidents.

Quote:

If you compare to the the ammount of similar shootings in the USA to the rest of the world, then you clearly see that the USA is leading on the ammount of school shootings and the number of victims. I am not someone who is very knowledgable about the statistics on this subject, but i suspect this is related to how much easier it is to get fire arms in the USA than in those countries.

It's quite telling that you accuse me of "not thinking rationally" while it's very obviously you who has no control of his emotions.

That statement shows I hit the mark.

Quote:

Take a chill pill, kiddo, and rather read what I was actually suggesting. I don't want to deprive the gun crazies of their items of worship. What I want is to make sure that people have to take responsibility for their arms. You have to register ALL your firearms, and you are held responsible if crimes are used with your own weapons, because this usually indicates that you failed to properly handle them (you're free to prove that you did NOT behave irresponsibly, but that's up to you). I want everyone found in possession of an unlicenced gun is fined and the gun confiscated and destroyed.

Who cares what you want?
Who the hell are you?
I mean, if we're going to play this kind of "wishing-well" game of what we want, I want every gun-control law in the US repealed, a mandatory militia enrollment for all able-bodied men and women ages 17-60 instituted, mandatory possession of a fully automatic assault rifle, pistol, and military shotgun.
Also, mandatory training and qualifications through the CMP, children's shooting clubs, and local recreational centers.
I also want a mandatory death penalty for use of a firearm in a crime that causes a death (no life in prison crap).
I want draconian anti-gang laws, and prosecution of any law enforcement, politicians, or other government employees that sell weapons to organized criminals (you know, like the BATF personnel that conducted Operation Fast & Furious).

However, I'm not really interested in your peter-pannery or playing make-believe.
I'm only interested in the facts of the situation as they lay, so put your emotional drivel in your pocket and save it for someone who actually gives a shit because I don't.
I will defend my rights whether you like it or not.

Quote:

Now tell me how this "punishes" the gun owners and "deprives them of their right". It only makes them responsible for their potential lack of oversight.

Really, shall we apply that to people with HIV/AIDS? Or how about politicians that order drone strikes that kill innocent children? Or maybe abortion doctors who kill babies for a living? How far are you willing to open this pandora's box?
Or does it only apply to guns because you have a morbid fear of them?

Quote:

Only in the wet dreams of the gun crazies. How would a murderer who is obviously intent on killing as many people as possible and then himself be discouraged from his attack? He would simply kill the armed teacher first and then the other kids. But maybe you'd rather have western-style shootouts in schools instead of teachers trying to evacuate kids ASAP?

No. I want to restrict gun possession to those who are ALLOWED to possess one, and to enforce the responsibility you have to show if you own one. I actually wonder why YOU would be opposed to that. In fact, you should be supporting my suggestion wholeheartedly. Why aren't you?

I snipped most of your childish post because it's too stupid for me to bother with.
The part I left is what you want to say.
You don't give a damn about people's rights, you just want to ban guns because you fear them.
You are the classical definition of a hoplophobe and that is a mental disorder.
There is nothing rational in what you're posting and I consider you incapable of having a mature discussion about this subject.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arturia Polaris

If you controlled guns as you do with cars... Think in terms of exams, training, licenses, etc. The risk of having a shooting like Virginia Tech would have been reduced.

The whole idea is to stop the innocents (which are already endangered by the real jerk with a gun) being just by-standers and to allow them to defend themselves.

These shootings all happen in places where no one can fire back, preying on the weak.

I'm not telling everyone to wield a gun, I'm just saying that if a madman grabs a gun and starts firing at people with no means to defend against it, there'll be casualties.

If a madman grabs a gun and starts firing at innocents who have a way to fight back, he'll be the casualty.

So you like living in a country where people have to be protected by firearms from themselves

It isn't a matter of liking it or not.
It simply is a fact of life that no law is going to change.

Quote:

Israel is under a constant terrorist threat
Apparently, the US is so ****** up you're living under a constant citizen threat?

No, we're under constant terrorist threat also didn't you know.
From domestic groups, foreign groups, drug Cartel groups, etc.
9/11 proved that, as did Oaklahoma City.
When is the last time that more than 3000 people died in Israel in a single attack?
We lost 168 in the Oaklahoma City bombing, including 19 children under the age of 6.
In Waco, 17 children were killed by the BATF totally fucking up that operation.
I go on, but what's the point. This incident, as tragic and horrible as it is, isn't actually unusual in the United States.
The United States is now, and I could argue, always has been a very violent place.
That's why we have the Department of Homeland Security, the TSA, the BATF, the FBI, the CIA, the DEA, militarized state and local police, and yes the right to keep and bear arms.
Culturally, we are probably one of the most violent societies on Earth, and Americans for the most part seem content with that.

I'm not saying we should outright ban guns, but for people who say that we should and for people that say we can't because we'll give up our rights (okay, rights that only some of the population actually wants) and they say that "if we give up that amendment, how long before we axe other amendments", I do have this to say: Of course, we wouldn't have to give up any rights if they never made the 2nd amendment in the first place. How unfortunate that they made an amendment to the constitution which says "Hey, every American has the right to own guns!".

You gotta love that a lot of people in America don't say "In retrospect, I wish they didn't do that", but a lot of those same people hate Thomas Jefferson for his good idea of "separation of church and state" ("Grrr, we coulda had a Christian theocracy, gosh darn it!").

I want to make clear that this thread was only locked to give us some time to review some of the recent posts and give the thread a break to prevent it from spiraling out of control (given how quickly it was moving). It was not an indication that discussing this topic was forbidden entirely.

Also, recently discussion on this topic spread to some other threads, and these discussions were asked to be stopped. This was because, if a thread on a certain topic is locked, it is not right just to migrate that discussion to another thread were it could be considered off-topic. The request here was that people take a break for a bit, not just choose a different thread.

Anyway, to be honest, we still need to review some of the above posts that got a bit too heated, but let me just set some clear ground rules going forward.

This is obviously a very heated topic, and particularly right now given the latest tragedy. It is understandable that people feel passionately about this, but the staff will not tolerate anything less than a civil, constructive conversation.

1. Do not attack any other posters. Period. Do not insult their intelligence, accuse them of trolling, or anything else -- even and especially if you think it's true.

2. If someone is trolling, report them. Do not respond. If you respond to a troll post, you are only making a bad situation worse, and you too may be asked/required to leave temporarily.

3. Stay on-topic. Please do not bring outside issues into this thread or derail the conversation into totally unrelated issues. Please use other more appropriate threads if they exist.

4. Please be understanding of the passion others bring to their position. You are very unlikely to "convert" anyone to your point of view. If you disagree with someone and conversation is going nowhere, please disengage and agree to disagree.

We want this conversation to remain constructive and open for posting, so people who disregard these guidelines may be subject to immediate one-day bans to give them time to cool their heads. If things spiral out of control, the thread may be locked again to give the staff time to issue infractions/bans and clean-up the mess.

Please, please help us to keep this discussion thread civilized, even though this is a very touchy issue for many right now.

Someone explain to me a good reason as to why the Bushmaster should be sold for civilian use.

I have no idea WTF a Bushmaster rifle is of any use for civilians. If it was for me, assault rifles (and their derivatives) as well as handguns like the ones shown here should be banned for starters. It's obvious they are not going to be used in hunting animals.

Don't be disingenuous. For one, that Bushmaster is a civilian variant. It is not capable of full-auto or 3-shot-burst firing. It's no different than any other semi-automatic rifle, except it's black and has a synthetic stock and a pistol grip.

Don't commit the "evil black rifles" fallacy. There's absolutely no difference between that rifle and an equivalent Browning in .223 chambering with wood furniture and engravings of leaping stags in a field. It's aesthetics and appearance only. I can quite easily take a standard Ruger Mini-14 with a wooden stock and fore from my local sporting goods store and buy a bunch of aftermarket crap for it to make it look "tacticool" just like that Bushmaster.

There are legitimate uses for these firearms. Just because one wouldn't hunt with them doesn't mean they cannot be used for other purposes, such as competitive sport shooting, recreational target shooting and home or personal defense.

I have no idea WTF a Bushmaster rifle is of any use for civilians. If it was for me, assault rifles (and their derivatives) as well as handguns like the ones shown here should be banned for starters. It's obvious they are not going to be used in hunting animals.

Nevermind the inaccuracies in that picture (designed for military use? LOL), your assertion is actually quite incorrect. The AR15 platform is used quite often for hunting, as it is a very effective rifle.